I”m not gonna dog ‘em - the BG fiddlers are impressive to me…the speed, the improv, and the blues keys…phew!

I think some confusion exists because Clark Kessinger had a distinct sound. He was influenced heavily by Ed Haley but also took cues from some of the greatest violinists in history to develop his sound, making it more fluid and smooth than that of many of the players in the Old Time canon. If his style sounds like bluegrass, it’s likely because bluegrass was built on the advancing technique among players like Kessinger who were beginning to take the music in new directions. The earliest bluegrass was much closer to Old Time in style, but as players blended in more elements from other genres, especially swing jazz, the trajectory shifted again toward a more modern sound with increasingly intricate passage work and chord progressions. That trajectory seems to have changed again as the listening public gravitated away from complexity in music and toward music that’s focused more on texture than on melody.

What do you mean? Can you elaborate on that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

 the listening public gravitated away from complexity in music and toward music that’s focused more on texture than on melody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by soppinthegravy

What do you mean? Can you elaborate on that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Violin Beautiful

 the listening public gravitated away from complexity in music and toward music that’s focused more on texture than on melody.

---

 

---

I'm thinking about the broader musical audience, not that of traditional fiddle music. Just looking at the music that is most popular, it has gotten progressively simpler from an analytical perspective. Just watch the Rick Beato videos where he analyzes the chart toppers. Where chord structure was once more elaborate, it's become reduced to pieces that in some cases don't modulate at all. The way they're consumed is different as well--not so much focus on the musicianship of the musician (after all, many pop musicians are using synthesized music and drum tracks generated by computers), but more on the "vibe" of the music established by the atmospheric qualities of the various tracks being manipulated by the producer. And in this age, active listening is far less common. Video game music, music that was written intentionally as a backdrop to a visual stimulant, has gotten more popular, leading orchestra programmers to (wrongly, in my opinion) assume that audiences will be happy to listen actively if the melodies they may recognize from games are played in a concert hall. This leads to orchestras having to shut down and the board members recoiling in shock, saying "But we chose music that was new and tendy. Why won't you buy any tickets?"

There is of course an argument that folk music has followed a formulaic pattern for centuries in terms of chord structure. It can also be argued that many traditional forms of music are simple in chord structure--often two or three chords and a simple AB pattern that repeats itself until a set number of iterations or the musicians decide to cut it off. But despite the harmonic simplicity of that type of music, enthusiasts enjoy identifying nuances in playing style, ornaments, or variations and the players themselves--at least in some cases--take pride in their attention to technique and accuracy of execution. Players of accompaniment parts often make an effort to "make it more interesting" by improvising surprising progressions or voicings to change the effect of the tune. The listening audience for genres that aren't part of pop culture is often far more actively engaged, but it represents a niche.

I think this is a complication for modern audiences who are approaching music that differs so substantially from atmosphere music, so much so perhaps that I would even venture to suggest that when many hear a piece of music that's more intricate, they are unable to comprehend what's going on because they're not accustomed to listening in that way. 
 

I've noticed a resurgence in interest in bluegrass music lately. There are many different theories that offer explanations. But it strikes me that the appreciation for the music is different now from that of the listening public when it was novel. I think people are aware of a fast tempo and a lot of activity from the musicians, but I'm not convinced that the other aspects are really being noticed that much. That's perhaps why AI bluegrass became such a sudden bubble.

The philosopher and founder of the Great Books series, Mortimer Adler, wrote a famous book, "How to Read a Book." It seemed shocking at the time that people who were being educated and could read proficiently would need a manual for reading a book, but Adler argued that the problem wasn't in basic reading ability but rather in the declining ability to approach a book and actively engage with it. As the decades have passed by since its publication, that argument has only gotten stronger, except now there are more people who are struggling even with reading proficiency despite going through school.

With that in mind, it seems to me that there's a similar issue with music. Although it's a part of the fabric of society, the activity of engaging directly with music is becoming rarer among the general public. That makes it much harder to sell nuanced music, which is why so much of the hit music is so painfully dull to musicians. The only way to combat that is to go back to the fundamentals of music and to explain all the nuance. In some form or another, a "How to Listen to Music" is needed to entice prospective listeners and give them a frame of reference that can allow them to grow in understanding and wonder. To me, the real value in a forum like this is in the granular discussions, lectures,queries, and arguments over the nuances of playing the music, because those (if they contain good information) give people the information they need to imindersrand what the music is and why it's worth consuming instead of whatever is currently at the top of the Spotify playlist.

There used to be a joke that rock stars would spend most of their careers making music about fighting the system and being fiercely independent, yet they didn't feel that they'd "made it" until they got to play with the London Symphony Orchestra. It seems now that the sign of success is to play in a football stadium or get enough plays on a streaming service to take a top spot.

I think bluegrass developed as players felt an urge over time to make the simple old tunes more complex and challenging. Bluegrass seems to me a great example of music that developed because the players wanted to change the technical aspects of the playing. I think that the listening audience at the time understood that and appreciated the music for its technical precision (especially since it was too fast for dancing, forcing the audience to listen instead of dancing and only passively listening). But as things changed, players got more and more technical and audiences moved in the opposite direction, making bluegrass a niche as less complicated forms dominated. The newer interest seems to be focused on the overall sound envelope, not on the intricacy of technique. For a short while, there was a departure into chord progressions that changed the context of the traditional tunes, but that gave way to a more generic form that's prevalent today. That makes it far easier to come up with things like Zombie Metal Bluegrass--mix up a few elements and you get a sound. Whether it's substantive is irrelevant to that process.